Appendix
Letter from Pat McFadden MP, Parliamentary Secretary,
Cabinet Office, to the Chairman of the Committee
Response to the Regulatory Reform Committee's
Second Special Report of Session 2006-07: Revised Standing Orders
I am writing in response to your Committee's report
on revised standing orders (March 2007). I am glad to read that
we agree on the majority of outstanding issues (including those
raised by the Procedure Committee) covered by my letter of 25
January 2007.
On reflection I am content to accept your proposed
redrafting of Standing Order 141 (14) to make explicit that the
opportunities for departments to give evidence when taking an
LRO through Parliament should not unreasonably impede the ability
of the Committee to complete its consideration of reports on draft
LROs on time.
In my last letter to you I also gave assurance that,
if your Committee were to make a recommendation that an order
should be debated even if there had been no division, the usual
channels would of course consider such a recommendation sympathetically
as long as time pressures in the House permit it. Time could be
made available for wider debate of an order in the future as it
was for the Fire Safety Regulatory Reform Order in 2005.
I reiterate this assurance, as well as the undertaking
I gave in that letter that a request by your Committee to debate
a negative order which it has voted against (but not vetoed) will
be given time for debate except in very unusual circumstances.
The Government really does not foresee any difficulty in making
time available for debate where there is evidence that the House
genuinely wishes a debate on a negative instrument. It is of course
very difficult to speculate about hypothetical future situations,
but if for some as yet unknown reason difficulties were to arise
in the future on either of these issues, I can assure you that
the Government will be committed to finding a solution to satisfy
the wishes of the House. I think the record of the Government
in the past has shown our readiness to do this.
For reasons of clarity, I am content to include in
paragraph (3) of SO No 18 a specific reference to the fact
that it is intended to apply only where the veto is not being
engaged.
I hope this addresses any remaining concerns you
may have. The revised Standing Orders will be tabled shortly for
agreement by the House and I hope this can be done as soon as
possible to allow the first draft Orders under the new Act to
be brought forward.
I am copying this letter to Greg Knight, Chairman
of the Procedure Committee.
15 May 2007
| 
